Wedding list: They have asked for money

SandC

I'm with Talulah on this.

Nobody ever said anything (including the wedding invite) about kids behaviour and running around. That's not always the reason behind not inviting children to a wedding. If I were getting married (no kids of my own) and all the adults I invited brought their kids there would be more children than adults.

Plus, it isn't like a package holiday - there are no free child places - each one costs!

I don't agree with the wording but I do agree with the sentiment. People often forget just how much money a wedding costs - and primarily on the catering. Just inviting one group of 4 close friends of mine with their other halves would make 8 adults and 8 kids!

pollyanna24

SugarSpun wrote: »

I don't think she should welcome children - it's just that the way it was worded is obviously putting off some of her guests.

Badly behaved children are the scourge of civilised social events. Well behaved ones are nice enough - if the hosts choose to invite them - till they start to get tired and should then be taken off to bed before they turn into badly behaved ones. I have a baby and like her a lot, but my BIL's specific invitation to her to his wedding had me quite bewildered. She's a baby and she's unpredictably noisy and I'd planned to leave her in the hotel room with a babysitter. If she starts complaining during the ceremony she and I will take a walk, and as soon as she even looks like she's about to misbehave at the reception we'll be back in the room out of the way. Simple.

All they had to say was "Please respect our wishes for an adults only ceremony and reception" and that would be totally polite and to the point.

You only "like her a lot"?

onlyroz

jcr16 wrote: »

but he menu isn't child friendly.

What on earth does this mean? I've taken my kids to a few "posh" weddings and both times they were given chicken nuggets. Why can't they be given a small portion of whatever the grown-ups are eating?

euronorris

mountainofdebt wrote: »

Sorry but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one........

and I speak as someone who had her honeymoon 4 years after she got married :rotfl::rotfl:

I agree that it would be wasteful to buy something that they don't need / want but at the end of the day a honeymoon is nothing more than a holiday and you or I wouldn't expect others to pay for our holiday now woul we?

(weirdly enough I have no issue with giving money - but if the happy couple chose to do nothing more than buy a holiday with it then that would be their choice !)

How is buying household goods and appliances any different to paying for a holiday?

I wouldn't usually expect anyone else to contribute towards the cost of a holiday. But then again, I also wouldn't usually expect anyone to buy me household goods/appliances.

You know, I'd like a steam cooker or a dishwasher etc, but I don't NEED them. Equally, I wouldn't NEED a honeymoon, but I would still like one.

So, I don't see the difference between spending your money on a gift, as opposed to just giving them the money.

Seriously, I would like to understand why people are so opposed to it.

S1976

I would never go to a wedding where my children are not invited, they are my family. If the couple do not want children at their wedding then invite everyone who doesn't have children, there wouldnt be many at the wedding. It's supposed to be a celebration, and for me seeing a room full of adults is nothing more than a boring social event, not a celebration.

talulahbeige_2

ninky wrote: »

it's interesting the whole "it's their day they should do what they want" attitude. it seems to reflect so much about the current selfishness of the west. maybe the acceptance that being selfish / "because i'm worth it "is the way to happiness is the reason so many marriages end in divorce. having lots of guests at your wedding doesn't have to cost a fortune.

what is more important - having the right table settings with "salmon or chicken" meal options or having a big and busy celebration full of all the people that surround you? is it about image, having the right backdrop for your photos - or is it about substance, having the right relationships around you to support and sustain your (emotionally) rich and diverse future together?

If it's not my and my OH's day then who's is it?
Its about us committing to each other not to a group of freinds and their children. We're paying for it and we chose to invite the people we wanted there. The people who we wanted to help support us in our coming life together.

No it's not about image and backdrops for photos, its about not starting married life saddled with debt.
Were not having expensive flower displays or meals with expensive wines. I'm not having bridesmaids or expensive hen weekends.
I'm also sure 14 under 3's that will be there won't remember being there and won't be that much support just yet!

vodooelephant

when we got married -I understood alot of my family had children so we we chose a local place for our reception with 2 halls....

One had a massive bouncy castle and coluring books / games (with a few friends of friends watching out for the kids in there) while the main hall was for the grown ups. obviousley there was a lot of mixing white dress on a bouncy castle

Worked fantastically

euronorris

ninky wrote: »

it's interesting the whole "it's their day they should do what they want" attitude. it seems to reflect so much about the current selfishness of the west. maybe the acceptance that being selfish / "because i'm worth it "is the way to happiness is the reason so many marriages end in divorce. having lots of guests at your wedding doesn't have to cost a fortune.

what is more important - having the right table settings with "salmon or chicken" meal options or having a big and busy celebration full of all the people that surround you? is it about image, having the right backdrop for your photos - or is it about substance, having the right relationships around you to support and sustain your (emotionally) rich and diverse future together?

You raise an interesting point. But.....there always seems to be a fair amount of guests at weddings, who haven't really spent that much time with the wedding couple. Usually invited because they are family (although, you may have only ever seen them twice in your life) or because the couple invited them out of guilt (ie, the old, I invited such and such, so now I have to invite this person/couple) etc.

That said, I don't see why anyone should not celebrate their wedding in the way they want to. Whilst it's nice to have lots of people attend, I would prefer to keep it to only the most important people in my life (ie close family and friends). I take issue with other family members guilting you into inviting 'long lost' relatives who are only really interested in the free food and party.

lilac-straw

I must be in a minority here but I thought weddings were about couples making a public declaration of their love and commitment to each other and not about the presents or money that people are going to bring them. If people want to give presents and money then thats great but why do people assume that they have a right to these things. I thinks it is rude for people to ask for gifts, never mind money! People used to give gifts for the house years ago because it helped the couple set up a home. It doesn't follow that because you have everything you need that you can have the cash instead!! If you have everything you need then you should say NO GIFTS NECESSARY or ask for a donation to charity or something similar. If I couldn't afford the honeymoon I wanted then I would cut down on some aspects of the wedding.

talulahbeige_2

S1976 wrote: »

I would never go to a wedding where my children are not invited, they are my family. If the couple do not want children at their wedding then invite everyone who doesn't have children, there wouldnt be many at the wedding. It's supposed to be a celebration, and for me seeing a room full of adults is nothing more than a boring social event, not a celebration.

I bet your fun down the pub!